482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15148187)
1. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.
Spahr AJ; Dorman MF
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):624-8. PubMed ID: 15148187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.
Koch DB; Osberger MJ; Segel P; Kessler D
Audiol Neurootol; 2004; 9(4):214-23. PubMed ID: 15205549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in nucleus 24 recipients.
Holden LK; Vandali AE; Skinner MW; Fourakis MS; Holden TA
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):681-701. PubMed ID: 16197281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study.
Wolfe J; Parkinson A; Schafer EC; Gilden J; Rehwinkel K; Mansanares J; Coughlan E; Wright J; Torres J; Gannaway S
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):553-60. PubMed ID: 22588233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.
Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Labadie RF; Haynes DS
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):524-41. PubMed ID: 17609614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
Donaldson GS; Allen SL
Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.
Wolfe J; Baker S; Caraway T; Kasulis H; Mears A; Smith J; Swim L; Wood M
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):589-96. PubMed ID: 17667768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Electrodographic analysis and field evaluation of the Speak coding strategy.
Dillier N; Bögli H; Lai WK
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():354-6. PubMed ID: 7668703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.
Baudhuin J; Cadieux J; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Maxson JL
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):302-12. PubMed ID: 22533974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor.
Loizou PC; Stickney G; Mishra L; Assmann P
Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12598809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
